0

“Bombay High Court Confirmed Civil Judge’s Removal from Service: Upholding Judicial Integrity Through Substantial Evidence of Misconduct and the Importance of Upholding Judicial Integrity.”

Case Title – Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak Vs. Registrar General, Bombay High Court & Anr.

Case Number – Writ Petition No. 15539 of 2022

Dated on – 23rd April,2024

Quorum – Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the Case of Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak Vs. Registrar General, Bombay High Court & Anr., Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak, the Appellant in the said case, was appointed as a Civil Judge Junior Division on 19th of March,2010. During the term of Aniruddha’s serving as the Civil Judge Junior Division, several complaints were instituted against Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak stating his misbehaviour, absenteeism and presiding over the court under the due influence of alcohol. Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak’s misconducted was highlighted from the reports of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nandurbar and the Shahada Bar Association. A discerning inquiry was conducted by the District Judge, Jalgaon during which it was observed that Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak’s behaviour was irregular which included not following court timings and wandering around in the near vicinity of the court. On dated 6th of January, 2018, Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak was involved himself in a serious incident at the Maharashtra Judicial Academy at Uttan, where he was spotted in an intoxicated state during a mediation course. Subsequently, he was relieved from the course. Charges were framed against Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak, which comprised of not following court timings, defection of duty, and being inebriated during the official duties. An inquiry committee found Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak guilty of charges 1,6 and 7 leading to his removal from the Judicial Service under Rule 5(1)(viii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the order of disposition was based on conjectures and lacked concrete evidences.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the Appellant was not adequately examined after the incident at Uttan and that the testimonies of the witnesses were conflicting.
  3. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the punishment of disposal from the position of power was disproportionate to the charges against him.
  4. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case relied on the past judgment of the court, including the Udaysingh s/o Ganpatrao Naiknimbalkar Vs. Governor, State of Maharashtra, Bombay & Ors. And Rahul s/o Abhimanyu Ranpise Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., to support the contentions of the Appellant.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the present case contented while supporting the order of disposal of the Appellant, that the court should emphasize on the need for judges to uphold high standards of conduct.
  2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the evidences clearly established the misconduct and inadequate behaviour of Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak while presiding over the court as well as in the vicinity of the court, justifying his disposition from the Judicial Services.
  3. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the present case cited the seriousness of the charges and the importance of maintaining the dignity of the judiciary.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Article 226 of the Constitution of India prescribes the Power of the Courts to issue Writs.
  2. Rule 5 (1)(viii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 governs the removal of the civil servants for misconduct.

ISSUES

  1. The main issues in the present case revolves around whether the charges against Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak were proven?
  2. Whether the punishment of disposition of Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak was proportionate to the charges imposed on him?
  3. Whether there were any irregularities in the procedure in the disciplinary process?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak Vs. Registrar General, Bombay High Court & Anr., recognised the narrow scope of the Judicial Review in the matter of services, stating that interference is warranted only if there are irregularities in the procedures or arbitrariness in the decision making. The court referred to the precedents and replicated the duty of the judiciary to uphold high standards of integrity and conduct. The court observed that the charges against Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak, including not following the timings of the court and being inebriated while presiding over the court were supported with substantial evidences. The court, considering the grave nature of the charges and the significance of judicial integrity, rejected the contentions of the Appellant that the punishment of disposition was disproportionate. The court in the present case, held that there were no irregularities in the procedures followed in the disciplinary process and that the decision of disposition of the Appellant from the service was justified. The court overturned and deemed inapplicable, all the precedents cited by the appellant, further strengthening the case of the disposition of the Appellant. The court, in the end, dismissed the Writ Petition instituted by the Appellant, upholding the decision of the disposition of the Appellant from the judicial services.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

0

Higher courts are required to follow judicial discipline and comity to uphold the law: Supreme Court.

Case title: Directorate Of Enforcement vs Niraj Tyagi

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 843 Of 2024

Decided on: 13.02.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Hon’ble Justice Prasanna B. Varale

 

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The appellants filed this appeal because they were dissatisfied with the interim orders issued by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition. The High Court has stayed the proceedings of the FIRs registered against the concerned respondents-accused, as well as the proceedings of the Directorate of Enforcement against the concerned respondents, and has further directed that no coercive action be taken against the respondents pending the writ petitions.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

They claimed that the Court issued an order staying the proceedings of the ECIR and the FIRs registered against the respondents without hearing the ED, so the ED filed a Review Petition, which is currently pending before this Court. He went on to argue that the High Court’s orders to stay the ECIR and FIR proceedings lacked compelling reasons.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

The Counsel appearing for the respondents in the appeal, referring the Court to the proceedings conducted under the SARFAESI Act and before the High Court and this Court, contended that the respondent-complainant Shipra Group, having failed in all of the aforementioned proceedings, had turned to criminal proceedings to instill fear in the financial institution and its officers.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court ruled that the High Court issued the impugned orders staying the investigations into the FIRs and ECIR in question in complete disregard of the previously established legal position. Without undermining the High Court’s authority under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceedings if the allegations in the FIR or complaint do not appear to constitute an offence against the accused, or if the criminal proceedings are found to be manifestly malafide or malicious, instituted with an ulterior motive, etc.

They opined that the High Court could not have stayed the investigations and prevented the investigating agencies from looking into the cognizable offences alleged in the FIRs and ECIR, especially since the investigations were still in their early stages.

The court stated that it is sufficient to say that judicial comity and judicial discipline require higher courts to follow the law. The court’s extraordinary and inherent powers do not grant it arbitrary jurisdiction to act at its discretion.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

 

Click here to read the judgement

0

JUDICIAL OFFICERS ARE NOT ON PAR WITH GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: SUPREME COURT

Case title: All India Judges Association V. Union of India & Ors.

Case no.: Writ Petition Civil no. 643 of 2015

Decided on: 04.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y Chandrachud, Hon’ble Justice J.B Pardiwala, Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The present writ petitions are concerning the allowances which have been granted to judicial officers and retired judicial officers by Second National judicial pay commission.

This Court adopted the Second National Judicial Pay Commission’s recommendations on the revision of judicial officers’ salary and pension by orders dated July 27, 2022, April 5, 2023, and May 19, 2023. Justice P V Reddy, a former judge of this Court of India, chaired the commission.

The court noted that, with the exception of three allowances that were modified, the allowances recommended by the First National Judicial Pay Commission, also known as the Shetty Commission, were upheld by this Court in All India Judges Association v Union of India in 2002. Following that, this Court accepted all allowances recommended by the subsequent pay commission, the Judicial Pay Commission, also known as the Justice Padmanabhan Committee, in its decision All India Judges Association v Union of India 2010.

In the report, the SNJPC took twenty-one allowances into account. Two new allowances are suggested among the SNJPC’s recommended allowances, and one allowance has two more components added to it.

The SNJPC has given state governments and union territories the opportunity to object to the allowances proposed. This Court’s record contains objections.

PETITIONERS OBJECTIONS:

The objections said by governments are that there will be a greater financial burden and expense as a result of the rate revision or, if applicable, the new allowances. It is necessary to abide by the allowance payment regulations set forth by each State for its own administrative establishment. Judicial officers must receive benefits that are commensurate with those of other government employees.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court on same benefits as govt. employees held that Judicial service is an integral and significant component of the state’s functions, contributing to the constitutional obligation to uphold the rule of law. Judicial service is distinct in its characteristics and in the responsibilities entrusted to District Judiciary officers to provide objective justice to citizens. The State is responsible for ensuring that the conditions of service, both during and after office tenure, as well as the post-retirement emoluments made available to former members of the judicial service.

The court on one of the objections raised by government that a financial burden cannot be used as an excuse to avoid the state’s mandatory duties. One such duty is to provide necessary service conditions for the effective discharge of judicial functions. There is also a need to maintain consistency in the service conditions of judicial officers across the country. Thus, the argument that each state’s rules must govern pay and allowances lacks substance. It would be completely inappropriate to compare judicial service to that of other state officers. Members of the judicial service have distinct functions, duties, restrictions, and restraints that apply both during and after service.

The court accepted the 21 recommendations of SNJPC and directed the formation of a Committee in each High Court to oversee the implementation of the SNJPC’s recommendations as approved by this Court. The Committee shall be known as the “Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary.” All states and union territories must now act promptly in accordance with the aforementioned directives. Disbursements for arrears of salary, pension, and allowances due and payable to judicial officers, retired judicial officers, and family pensioners shall be computed and paid on or before February 29, 2024. The CSCDJs established in accordance with the previously issued directives must monitor compliance.

By no later than April 7, 2024, each Committee operating under the High Court’s auspices must submit its report to this Court through the High Court’s Registrar General.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

0

Arbitrator to be appointed if the parties to the agreement do not follow their duties : Patna HC

Title:  Delco Infrastructures Projects Limited v The Bihar State Education Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited and Ors

Citation:  Request Case No.67 of 2023

Coram:  Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran

Decided On: 07-10-2023

Introduction:

The application has been made seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator invoking the powers of the court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Facts:

Petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement dated 05.02.2014 The said agreement contains an arbitration Clause-25. The petitioner invoked the said arbitration clause vide communication dated 01.05.2023 and also reply dated 03.06.2023 to the show cause notice dated 26.05.2023 but was to no avail. It is claimed that the respondents have not settled the dispute and the dispute is of civil in nature.  

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

The court found that the there is no dispute in the legality, validity and binding effect of the written agreement entered into between the parties, he existence of arbitration clause contained therein, the existence of dispute(s) arising there from, the dispute arising out of the agreement being civil in nature, no legal impediment in the adjudication of the dispute by the learned Arbitrator, Petitioner having exhausted the channel available for resolution of the dispute, the respondent having failed to appoint an Arbitrator pursuant to the invocation of the arbitration clause by the petitioner. After consideration of the aforementioned factors, the court appointed an Arbitrator to solve the dispute.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

0

Court Allows The 90 Years Old Mother Residing With Her Son, To Meet Her Daughter On Her Request: High Court Of Delhi

Title: Seema v State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Ors.

Citation: W.P.(CRL) 3218/2023

Decided on: 02.11.2023

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shalinder Kaur

Introduction:

The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that her mother Smt.Rameshwari Devi was residing with her and after one week, i.e. on 12.10.2022, the respondent i.e. the brother of the petitioner came to the house of the petitioner and took her with him to his residence on the assurance that he would bring her back after some days. Therefore, a present petition has been filed seeking directions against the respondent to produce the mother of the petitioner namely Smt.Rameshwari Devi.

Facts:

Inspector Arjun Singh of Police Station Krishna Nagar appears with Mr.Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel (Criminal) for Delhi Police, and submits that he had visited the house of the brother of the petitioner i.e. respondent, and upon his interaction with the mother of the petitioner, he found that the mother is staying comfortably and willingly with respondent. He also submits that she stated that her son takes good care of her. The petitioner who is present in Court with her counsel states that her mother is 90 years old and she just wants to meet her once.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

Court has no power to direct the mother to meet the petitioner, however, since she is a daughter and considering that the mother has not said anything against her and has also not denied meeting her. The court gave the direction to the Inspector that he shall take the petitioner to the house of her brother on 03.11.2023, where her mother is residing, at 4 pm for 10 minutes to meet her mother. The inspector shall be accompanied by one lady police officer at the said residence and the said officer shall ensure that the petitioner maintains a congenial atmosphere and meets her mother peacefully.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement